Nauji prancūzų mokslininko darbai apie lietuvių kalbą

their distribution. This is an important contribution not only to grammatical theory. A comprehensive description of all these variants is also highly necessary for language practice. Having turned the final page of Functional Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, we must say that it is a monumental description of the grammatical system of Lithuanian, which synthesizes not only the author’s research into grammar but also that of many other linguists, and opens up new avenues for exploring newly raised problems. Not only professional linguists will find this work indispensable, but also Lithuanian-language teachers, philology students, and more educated users of standard Lithuanian. Tastefully and attractively published by the Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing with funds from the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language under the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, this grammar substantially enriches the treasury of Lithuanian linguistics. Albertas Ružė Vilnius University, Kaunas Faculty of Humanities NEW WORKS BY A FRENCH SCHOLAR ON THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE Daniel P e t i t Présentation de la langue litunienne. – Lalies. Actes des sessions de linguistique et de littérature 19, Paris, 1999, 7–22. Phonologie du Lituanien. Système vocalique et accentuation. – Op. cit., 23–42. Morphologie nominale du Lituanien. Le système des déclinaisons et l’expression du genre grammatical. – Op. cit., 43–74. Morphologie verbale du Lituanien. Diathèse et voix passive. – Op. cit., 75–111. Syntaxe litunienne. Syntaxe des participes. – Op. cit., 113–135. À propos du lituanien Sámbaris: La racine IE. *bher- en baltique oriental. – Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 93(1998), fasc. 1, 229–288. The study of the Lithuanian language in France has a long tradition, dating back to the time of Ferdinand de Saussure, Antoine Meillet, and Roberto Gauthiot; it was later continued by Raymond Schmittlein, Paul Garde, Jean Haudry, and other linguists, who wrote about Lithuanian and used its data in comparative and typological studies. In recent decades, however, as new Baltic studies centers have been established in Poland, Italy, Germany, and other countries, research on Lithuanian in France has declined somewhat. Therefore, great interest has been arou- 214 A whole series of works by the young French linguist Daniel Petit, devoted to the phonology, grammar, and lexicology of Lithuanian, has recently appeared in Paris. The linguistic yearbook “Lalies,” published in Paris by the École Normale Supérieure, has for several years devoted most of its volumes to illuminating the characteristics of individual languages (e.g., Modern Greek, Etruscan, Arabic, and Coptic); the 19th volume contains most of the works under discussion. The first volume of this yearbook (1979) had already published the “Comparative Introduction to Lithuanian” (Introduction comparative au lituanien) by the renowned Indo-Europeanist Jean Haudry. Daniel Petit’s five studies on the grammatical structure of Lithuanian fill 135 substantial pages of volume 19, and thus, in their sheer extent, are comparable to a monograph. The introductory article (7–22) discusses the place of the Baltic languages in the Indo-European language family, the main differences between East and West Baltic (arising largely from East Baltic innovations), and the conservatism of Lithuanian. In describing the earliest contacts with the western Finnic and Slavic and Germanic languages, it shows the gradual contraction of the Baltic-speaking area and the earliest differences among Lithuanian dialects (incidentally, on p. 19 these are dated, following tradition, to the 13th century, although according to more recent research they are probably older). The principal written monuments are then listed, and the subsequent development of the language is outlined in general terms. This concise introduction to Lithuanian is highly informative, accurately and methodically written, and synthesizes the most recent literature. Only the statement that Daukša’s Postil was written in the western Samogitian dialect (“dans un dialecte bas-lituanien de l’Ouest” 19) should be qualified—it apparently arose from the ambiguous use of the name Samogitian in Lithuanian sources. I would also argue that the coincidence of the third-person plural and singular verb forms should not unreservedly be regarded as a Baltic loss (9), since it may be a relic of remote antiquity1. The article on Lithuanian phonology focuses chiefly on the vowel system and accentuation, which has long interested linguists around the world because of its distinctive synthesis of dynamic and tonal accent. Continuing the French linguistic tradition2, the author uses mora theory to describe the differences between long and short vowels, acute and circumflex vowels, diphthongs, and mixed diphthongs in Lithuanian: short vowels are treated as monomoraic, while long vowels, diphthongs, and mixed diphthongs are bimoraic; long acute vowels are considered to have the first mora stressed (ū̄ = U + u, áu = A + u, ár = A+r), and long circumflex vowels the second mora stressed (ū̄ = u + U, aū = a + U, ar̄ = a + R). Noun accentuation types are distinguished according to the word’s accentuation tendency (root versus ending stress) and the intonational structure of the root. 1 Cf. Pisani 1958: 343; Toporov 1961: 62–63; Kazlauskas 1968: 303; Watkins 1969: 49 ff., 85, 126, 213 ff.; 1970: 166–170; Ivanov 1981: 58–59. 2 Martinet 1960; Garde 1968: 14 ff.; similarly Trubetzkoy 1977: 180. 215 (acute versus circumflex roots). The four accentuation types thus distinguished correspond to the traditional accentuation paradigms, but are designated differently: A2=1, B2=2, A1=3, B1=4 (32). The realization of the aforementioned basic accentuation principles in various contexts is then discussed. Here, the focus is primarily not on fixed versus mobile accent within the paradigm, but on the relations between root and ending stress defined individually for each case. In this respect, the author’s account of noun accentuation differs from the usual one in Lithuanian accentology. In the author’s view, Lithuanian accentuation, owing to its exceptionally complex and distinctive structure, is an important subject not only for historical but also for typological research. The chapter on noun morphology (43–74) examines in detail the relationship between Lithuanian declension types and the category of gender. The declension types themselves, or declensions, as is now customary in descriptive Lithuanian grammar, are distinguished according to inflectional stems; the shortcomings of earlier classifications and numbering systems are also noted. It is observed that the loss of the neuter gender among nouns prompted a tendency to polarize masculine and feminine declension types: masculine (i)a/u, feminine o/ė, and mixed-type i declensions emerged. The hypothesis is proposed that the so-called “common gender” is historically based on feminine abstracts; cf. pabaisa – baisà ‘fear’, gyrà ‘boaster’ – gyrà ‘praising’; this is also supported by the fact that many nouns of the so-called “common gender” are deverbal derivatives, cf. dílba: delbti, niùra: niùrti. The predominance of the feminine gender among those i-stem nouns that have been masculine since antiquity in other Indo-European languages (e.g., avis, ugnìs) is also explained by generalization from old feminine abstracts (mirtis, mintis). The tendency to distinguish old consonant-stem nouns by gender (n-stem—masculine, r-stem—feminine) may be associated with stem changes in certain r-stem nouns (e.g., *bhrātēr; cf. Lithuanian broterėlis) (52–53). Since adjective declensions are most clearly distributed according to gender, it is assumed that the adjective system may have served as the model for the corresponding redistribution of nouns. The morphological affinity between noun and adjective inflectional stems provided favorable conditions for this process (60). The fact that Lithuanian no longer has i-stem adjectives (apart from locative relics of the didime type) may also explain the diversity of gender among i-stem nouns. Having examined the differences between gender stems in the paradigms of simple and pronominal adjectives (cf. didìs – didė, but didýsis – didžióji, etc.), the author concludes that the basis for gender correlations in Lithuanian adjectives consists of two systems inherited from Indo-European antiquity: 1) the primary system: masculine -as, feminine -ā < PIE *-ōs, *-ā; 2) the secondary system: masculine -us, feminine -i < PIE *-ūs: *iH₂, *ieH₂. The pattern characteristic of present-day Lithuanian, -is: -ė (didẽlis: didelė), is regarded as a variant of the primary system, with -ė derived from *-iā < PIE *ieH₂ (67). The ė inflectional stem, dominant in the gender correlation of nouns denoting persons or animals, is also considered an innovation 216 (vilkas – vilkė, élnias – élnė, bríedis – briédė, miegalùs – miegalė). The ancient correlation a: o (< *o: *ā, cf. Sanskrit ásvah ‘horse’: ásvā ‘mare’) is still retained by substantiva mobilia with the suffixes -tojas, -ėjas, cf.: mokytojas: mokytoja, vežėjas: vežėja. It is thought that the change from *į-a to į-e was impeded here by the need to preserve the forms of the suffixes themselves, since *į-e would have had to become phonetically -e (68). The section on verb morphology (75–111) examines the development of voice and the passive. The author defines voice as the morphological expression of the relationship between actants and the verb (78), but focuses mainly on the transitivity–intransitivity opposition, which is expressed in the following ways: 1) by forms of the same verbs, 2) by prefixation, 3) by internal inflection (i.e. ablaut), 4) by external inflection (suffixes) and agglutination (reflexive verbs). A synchronic and diachronic overview of these means follows. The oldest, relic expression of voice is rightly considered to be through the same verb forms (e.g., dègti, kèpti). Pairs of prefixed and unprefixed verbs likewise do not constitute a genuine opposition based on transitivity; it is emphasized that some prefixed verbs (e.g., palikti) have also long had a twofold (i.e. first-type) voice. The use of internal inflection, i.e. ablaut, to express the transitivity–intransitivity opposition is discussed as an innovative process specific to the Baltic languages. The author connects it with ablaut in forms of certain deverbal adjectives bearing the suffix *to (gérti: gìrtas, kélti: kìltas), and also describes the role of different inflectional stems, the formant *stō, and the infix. It is stated that this means of expressing voice was productive in the Baltic languages, but did not become systematic for two reasons: first, ablaut is possible only in the roots of certain verbs (a formal factor); second, intransitive verbs most often denoted natural or spontaneous processes: the wind rises, branches bend, and so on (92–93). We might add here that the opposition between transitive and intransitive verbs with different grades of vowel alternation (keisti: kìsti, lenkti: lìnkti, etc.) in the Baltic languages probably developed on the basis of an older opposition between active action and spontaneous state. The relatively recent formation of the transitivity–intransitivity opposition is indicated not only by morphological processes but also by syntactic processes clearly discernible in the history of Lithuanian: the weakening of the independent role of cases, their semantic agreement with the verb turning into grammatical dependence, and the strengthening of verbal government. Before becoming a means of expressing transitivity–intransitivity, root ablaut of the verb of the eX: X type probably had a semantic (derivational) character in the Baltic languages, partly retained to this day. Infixation (unlike ablaut) does not depend on root structure and is used in various ways to express the transitivity–intransitivity opposition: transitivity may be marked by a suffixed verb (áugti – augìnti), a non-suffixed verb (svérti – svérdėti), both members of the opposition may be suffixed (gražėti – grąžinti), and suffixation may combine in various ways with ablaut (sėsti – sodinti, etc.). Most— 217 often, verbs with the suffixes -inti and -yti have the feature of transitivity, but these suffixes also give verbs other meanings: the suffix -inti most often forms causative verbs, while the suffix -yti forms iterative verbs; only when added to intransitive verb stems does the suffix -yti change their voice. Thus, the author’s overview clearly shows that the opposition between transitive and intransitive verbs based on infixation, too, is not grammaticalized in Lithuanian, but is semantic and derivational in nature. In certain cases, the reflexive formant of verbs in Lithuanian has become a productive means of expressing intransitivity. The author, following tradition, considers the original meaning of si to be dative (100), though this is difficult to reconcile with its ancient and predominant function of eliminating the accusative object, which later enabled reflexive verbs to become counterparts of the medial forms characteristic of other Indo-European languages in antiquity. The work briefly describes the principal groups of reflexive verbs, including potential and conditional-state reflexives close to the passive (laukas gerai susiarė; daug duonos susivalgė). Such usage is considered marginal (as is also shown by the lexical restriction of the verbs); the author reasonably concludes that reflexive verbs, although productive, did not develop in Lithuanian to the point of becoming passive, as they did in the Slavic languages (103). From the perspective of linguistic typology, such passive-like constructions (so-called quasi-passive reflexives) are considered a link between decausative reflexives and the passive3, suggesting that in this respect the Baltic languages have preserved an older state. In discussing the relatively recent expression of the passive through periphrastic constructions with passive participles, the author highlights means of expressing it that are distinctive of Lithuanian: forming the passive not only from verbs governing the accusative but also from verbs governing other cases, as well as from intransitive verbs (the so-called impersonal passive). The conclusion is that the Lithuanian verb system inherited from Indo-European, owing to the loss of the middle voice and the historical development of the formation of intransitive forms, came to lack internal means of forming the passive and had to resort to external forms for this purpose, namely participles (107). The final chapter of the grammar studies (113–134) discusses the syntax of Lithuanian participles, summarizing research conducted mostly in Lithuania. The author emphasizes that Lithuanian has developed all the possibilities for using participles inherited from Indo-European antiquity, and that this demonstrates the central place of participles in the syntactic structure of the language (132). In the study “On Lithuanian Sámbaris: the Indo-European root *bher- in the East Baltic languages,” published in the first part of volume 93 of the Bulletin of the Paris Linguistic Society, the author examined in detail Lithuanian words with the root ber-/bir-, taking into account cognates in related languages. Those words, etymologically connected 3 Geniu šienė 1987: 351. 218 with PIE *bher- ‘to carry’, in the eastern Baltic languages has a distinctive, different meaning, ‘to scatter, pour a loose substance’. The author attempts to discern remnants of Indo-European usage in the derivative sámbaris, which in Lithuanian means: ‘a communal feast marking the end of sowing or the harvest’, ‘a shepherds’ feast at Pentecost’, ‘collection, levy’, ‘items or money put together’. Drawing on data from old writings, folklore, and dialects, the study shows how the variant stem forms of this word (sámbaris, sámbariai, sá mbaras, sámbara, sámbare, sámbarės) and their Latvian counterparts are used. It is noted that the word sámbaris denoted an ancient agricultural ritual consisting of two parts: collecting and bringing together the grain, and scattering it collectively. In the author’s view, the first part of the ritual reflects the oldest meaning of the verb suberti, ‘to collect’, which is also found in its Slavic counterpart súbirati. From the second part of that ritual—the scattering of grain—the meaning ‘to scatter grain’ may have developed for the root verb ber-, later generalized to the scattering of other small objects as well. A verb *sm-bher- ‘to collect’ is reconstructed for both Baltic and Slavic, but in the Slavic languages its derivative súborŭ, under the influence of Greek συναγωγή, came to mean ‘a gathering of clergy, a cathedral’, whereas in the Baltic languages the verb’s original meaning applied to the collection not of people but of sacrificial grain. The author concludes that, owing to divergent paths of development and independently occurring semantic processes, Lithuanian sámbaris and Slavic súborŭ should not be regarded as traces of a common Baltic and Slavic cult4. Perhaps even this brief overview of Daniel Petit’s works shows that they address important problems in Lithuanian linguistics. The works are rich in content and concise, demonstrating a sound command of the subjects under study and a high level of philological culture. They will certainly contribute to further resolution of the issues discussed. The author has thoroughly studied contemporary literature on Baltic linguistics and draws on the latest works by Lithuanian linguists, bringing them into circulation within European linguistic thought. The author’s excellent command of Lithuanian allows him to work freely with its data; I would only correct the construction džiaugiasi būti (= esąs) giriamas (130), apparently artificially formed on the model of nori būti giriamas. I found no typographical errors in the numerous Lithuanian examples, only an occasional minor slip in names: Velius = Vėlius (9, 18, 22), Rindaugas = Mindaugas (18), Genušienė = Geniu šienė (102, 103, 108). Overall, the works by Daniel Petit mentioned here are significant for the advancement of Baltic studies and deserve the close attention of Lithuanian studies scholars. Having read them, it becomes clear that a talented researcher of the Baltic languages has emerged in the Francophone world. We now look forward to his further work in this field. 4 Tokią bendrumo hipotezę yra iškėlęs Pietro Dini 1995: 147–152. 219 LITERATŪRA Dini P. 1995: A propos du vieux sl. sъborъ. – Analecta Indoeuropaea Cracoviensia Ioannis Safarewicz Memoriae Dicata, ed. W. Smoczyński, Cracoviae: Universitas, 147–152. Garde P. 1968: L'accent, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Geniušienė E. 1987: The Typology of Reflexives, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Ivanov Vjač. Vs. 1981: Иванов Вяч. Вс. Славянский, балтийский и раннебалканский глагол. Индоевропейские истоки, Москва: Наука. Kazlauskas J. 1968: Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika (kirčiavimas, daiktavardis, veiksmažodis), Vilnius: Mintis. Martinet A. 1960: Éléments de linguistique générale, Paris: Armand Colin. Pisani V. 1958: L’indoeuropéen reconstruit. – Lingua 7. Toporov V. N. 1961: Топоров В. Н. К вопросу об эволюции славянского и балтийского глагола. – Вопросы славянского языкознания 5, 35–70. Trubetzkoy N. S. 1977: Grundzüge der Phonologie, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Watkins C. 1969: Indogermanische Grammatik 3: Formenlehre 1: Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbal flexion, Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Watkins C. 1970: Remarks on Baltic verb inflection. – Baltic Linguistics, ed. Magner T., Schmalstieg W. R., University Park and London: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Vytautas Ambrazas Kanceliarinės kalbos patarimai. Pataisytas ir papildytas leidimas / Lietuvių kalbos institutas; [parengė Pranas Kniūkšta], Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos inst., 1998, 339 p. 1993 m. išleistų „Kanceliarinės kalbos patarimų“ ir 1994 m. pasirodžiusio pakartotinio jų leidimo knygynuose seniai nebepavykdavo užtikti, o ne vienas šią įsigytą parankinę knygą buvo ir gerokai suskaitęs. Kadangi reikalų raštų tvarkytojams, gausiam tarnautojų būriui tokio tipo knyga aktuali ir reikalinga ir dėl to, kad per keletą pastarųjų metų nemažai kas pasikeitė, Lietuvių kalbos instituto Kalbos kultūros skyriuje parengti nauji – pataisyti ir papildyti „Kanceliarinės kalbos patarimai“. Rengdami šią knygą, autoriai (pagrindinis rengėjas ir tvarkytojas Pranas Kniūkšta) turėjo peržiūrėti pačius kanceliarinės kalbos reiškinius ir faktus, juos atrinkti. Buvo atsisakyta pasenusių ir iš reikalų raštų dingusių dalykų. Į „Patarimus“ nebeįrašyti tokie nebent pačioje nevalyviausioje rašliavoje besitaikantys žodžiai kaip atsinešti (požiūriui, elgsenai reikšti), davinys (faktams, duomenims nusakyti), išnešti (kai nėra nešimo, pvz., išnešti sprendimą, pasiūlymą, pakeikimą) ir kt. Kaip antraštiniai įtraukti apie du šimtai per praėjusius metus reikalų raštuose atsiradusių ar pradėtų aktyviau vartoti teisės, administracinės 220